Search for: "T. R.1"
Results 1 - 20
of 18,064
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Jan 2014, 8:52 am
The post Case Previews: R v O’Brien, R (T & Anor) v SSHD & Anor, and R v Mackle (Nos. 1, 2 and 3), and R v McLaughlin appeared first on UKSCBlog. [read post]
23 Dec 2016, 4:24 am
T 621/12, Reasons, point 2). [read post]
7 Nov 2012, 5:01 pm
Reasoning as in T 708/00, an objection under R 137(5) should not have been made. [read post]
6 Aug 2013, 5:01 pm
In decision T 604/01, the board held that objections under A 123(2) and (3) which the opponent raised during the opposition proceedings but did not further explain until OPs could not be excluded under R 71a(1) EPC 1973 because these objections were a matter of argument. [read post]
29 Oct 2013, 6:01 pm
The requested “correction” has already been carried out in claim 1 according to the main request and the auxiliary requests 1 to 3 and 5.[2.1] However, neither R 139 nor R 140 allow for a “correction” of the granted patent as desired by the [patent proprietor] (see G 1/10 [order, as well as point 1 and points 10 and 11 of the reasons in connection with point VII.2 of the summary of facts and submissions]. [read post]
1 Jan 2013, 5:01 pm
Hence, the board concludes that the requirements of R 99(1)(a) are met and thereby follows the jurisprudence established in decisions T 920/97 [1], T 475/07 [1.1] and T 1519/08 [2.1]). [2.2.3] Moreover, the board does not agree that the appeal proceedings should be stayed in view of decision T 445/08, pending as referral G 1/12. [read post]
4 Apr 2017, 11:58 pm
Die Kammer hält die in der Entscheidung T 615/14 für die Übertragbarkeit der in der Entscheidung G 1/12 für die Anwendbarkeit der Regel 139 Satz 1 EPÜ hinsichtlich der Berichtigung des Beschwerdeführers genannten Begründung auf die Frage der Berichtigung der Bezeichnung der Einsprechenden für richtig und schließt sich dieser Begründung auch für das vorliegende… [read post]
9 Dec 2013, 5:01 pm
T 242/05 [2.1-3]). [read post]
21 Apr 2015, 6:25 am
<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/GenderAndTheLawBlog/~4/9WZI-_K4Y8A" height="1" width="1" alt=""/> [read post]
13 Jan 2013, 5:01 pm
NB: Not long ago, T 830/08 found another allowable exception to R 43(6).Should you wish to download the whole decision, just click here.The file wrapper can be found here. [read post]
1 Sep 2013, 5:01 pm
R 77(1) (rejection without invitation to remedy the deficiencies) applies only to non-compliance with the provisions of A 99(1) or R 76(2)(c).Therefore, even if there was a deficiency under R 76(2)(a) regarding the opponent’s identity (nationality and place of residence), this would not render the opposition inadmissible.The opponent also objected that the amendments did not comply with R 80 (according to which that the amendments have to… [read post]
3 Sep 2018, 2:57 am
By mistake, the opponent's representative failed to timely file the request under R.84(1). [read post]
18 Nov 2013, 5:01 pm
In this case the opponent filed an appeal against the decision to maintain the opposed patent in amended form.The patent proprietor requested the Board to hold the appeal inadmissible because it was based on fresh documents (D6 to D13).The opponent argued that these documents had been found in a search that had become necessary because the Opposition Division had revised the objective technical problem.[1.1] An appeal shall be rejected as inadmissible if it does not comply with A 106 to A 108,… [read post]
30 Dec 2012, 5:01 pm
[1] The appeal as filed on 17 December 2008 fulfilled the requirements of A 106 to A 108 […].[2] The submissions made by [the patent proprietor’s] representative with the letter of 1 June 2012 […] indicated that the appellant had ceased to exist as a legal entity.[3] According to decision T 353/95 [2], only an existing natural or legal person can be a party to opposition proceedings (A 99(1) EPC; Lunzer/Singer, The EPC, London 1995, 99.02) and… [read post]
8 Oct 2013, 5:01 pm
The rule states:“If the Board of Appeal notes that the appeal does not comply with R 99, paragraph 1(a), it shall communicate this to the appellant and shall invite him to remedy the deficiencies noted within a period to be specified. [read post]
19 Dec 2012, 5:01 pm
R 164 as amended entered into force on April 1, 2010, without there being any transitional provisions. [read post]
18 Dec 2012, 5:01 pm
T 382/92). [read post]
7 Mar 2013, 5:01 pm
The requirements of R 99(1)(b) are thus met. [read post]
13 Nov 2013, 5:01 pm
This is because the EPO, unlike the JPO, considered the application to be non-unitary and so had applied R 164(1). [read post]
21 Feb 2010, 3:02 pm
In the absence of such a peak, it is not possible to obtain a significant value of the ratio R at 1615 cm-1. [read post]
